System Override

NOW THAT THE lateral entry scheme of the Indian government has been sacrificed at the altar of reser­vation, Indian Administrative Service officers would be relieved. When it was initiated, for the first time the higher bureaucracy had to deal with what in the private sector is as common as salt—competition. But they really did not have much cause for worry even if the scheme was still in force because the probability of lateral entrants making a difference was negligible.

This is because if you introduce small drops into a big pond, it is the drop that merges into the pond and not the pond that changes. Or, take another thought experiment. Say there is an office of 100 employees where everyone is corrupt and two new ethical men come in. What are the odds that they will make the rest of the 100 honest or that they themselves will turn corrupt? The old adage of system determines behaviour usually wins out. There are exceptions to this. If someone with extraordinary powers and great ingenu­ity is put in right at the top with the remit to change a system, then there is some chance of making a difference. The lateral entry scheme was for mid-level positions and that is not a place from where revolutions begin.

That the scheme is now being curtailed because the politics of caste has inveigled into it only reinforces that changing anything in the Indian system is a project that spans decades, and there is no certainty that the change will be for the better. The very reason why lateral entry was felt necessary was because no one is under any illu­sion about the efficiency of anything connected with governments. Things are done not for ends that have rewards and punishments built into it. Instead it is only to maintain one’s position in the hierarchy and wait with time to go higher up. The security of the govern­ment job is the reason why it is so incompetent. In the private sector, the weeding out of incompetence happens from the lowest level itself because with limited resources businesses just can­not afford to lug along those who do not pull their weight.

Lateral entry would just have made those who joined become like govern­ment servants once they realise that they are unable to do anything without a sign on a file by someone else. This is not even an Indian condition. In developed countries, the bureaucracy might have better systems but, com­pared to their own private sector, they are just as inefficient.

Lateral entry schemes might have worked if it was underpinned by an ide­ology that believed government is only good when it tries to be as less of itself as possible, and relentlessly reduces its size until it is only in areas where it is critically needed, like defence, policing, etc. Then the scheme would be part of a series of measures to make governance lean. Instead, it was just one more scoop in the bloat and its very irrelevance made it easy to give up on it.

About The Author

Madhavankutty Pillai

Madhavankutty Pillai has no specialisations whatsoever. He is among the last of the generalists. And also Open chief of bureau, Mumbai  

•